Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Folio 5 recto and flap (Ashby 8): Baths of Diocletian
Browse
Reference number
SM volume 115/8
Purpose
Folio 5 recto and flap (Ashby 8): Baths of Diocletian
Aspect
Plan
Scale
To an approximate scale of 1:1000
Inscribed
[Drawing] .HICNOGROPHIA. TERMARVM. MEDIA. PARS. DEOCRITIИ[I] (‘plan of half of the Baths of Diocletian’); .M[eridies]. (‘South’); 5 [early seventeenth-century hand]
[Mount] 8 [x2]
Signed and dated
- c.1513/14
Datable to c.1513/14
Medium and dimensions
[Drawing] Pen and brown ink and grey-brown wash over stylus lines and compass pricks, on a folded double sheet of laid paper (232x331mm); tears along stitching fold; rounded corners at left and right; left half inlaid and right half folded to cover it (window on verso of mount)
[Mount] Frame lines, in pen and dark brown ink, 10mm apart
Hand
Bernardo della Volpaia
Watermark
[Drawing] None [Mount] None
Notes
This plan is identified by a caption in antique-inspired capitals as that of the Baths of Diocletian (298–306 CE), which was located in the north-eastern part of ancient Rome (LTUR 1993–2000, 5, pp. 53–58). It shows just over half the complex (the south-eastern or right-hand portion) and it is drawn across a double page (the centrefold of the first gathering in the original compilation) to accommodate the complex's vast size while making the detail readable. It accurately records what then remained, which, although ruinous, was in much better condition than the Baths of Caracalla (Fol. 13r and flap/Ashby 8); but as well as charting the extant fabric it also indicates the plausible positions of columns and colonnades that had mostly vanished. It also marks the location (albeit not entirely accurately) of the wedge-shaped water cistern just beyond the complex’s south-eastern periphery. As such, it tallies closely with reliable modern-day reconstructions of the ancient complex (Laurenti–Serlorenzi 2002, p. 59 fig. 71; Le terme di Diocleziano 2014, p. 90).
The plan is among the earliest drawings of the complex to survive. It is preceded only by a heavily worked, free-hand drawing of just over half the main block attributed to Bramante (Frommel 1989a), and probably by another ascribed to Antonio da Sangallo the Elder likewise representing just over half the entire complex. The Coner plan is connected – either directly or indirectly – to both, but it is in several respects closer to the Bramante drawing in having several distinctive features seen there but not in Antonio the Elder’s version. These are mainly associated with the caldarium (the rectangular hall at bottom-centre of the right-hand leaf; C in diagram), the tepidarium (the small circular space to its left with four projecting arms), and the frigidarium (the large rectangular space left of the tepidarium mostly shown on the left-hand leaf). The Coner drawing follows Bramante’s drawing in showing the caldarium correctly with a convex entrance projecting forward by some considerable distance, the tepidarium with both a pair of spiral staircases to the front and a further pair with straight flights to the rear, and the frigidarium with a central bay that is wider than the other two – a feature recorded only occasionally in modern plans (see Laurenti–Serlorenzi 2002, p. 59 fig. 71). All these features are interpreted differently in the Sangallo drawing, as is showing the rectangular spaces beyond the frigidarium’s side-aisles as having openings, like in the Bramante drawing, on all four of their sides. While the Coner plan is closer to the Bramante drawing in these particular respects, it still departs from it by recording the structures lining the complex’s periphery, as well as the cistern outside it, which are all featured in the Sangallo plan. It is conceivable, therefore, that the Sangallo plan came first, that the Bramante survey was a modified version of it, and that the Coner drawing was derived from a more finished and more complete version of the Bramante survey that is now lost. The possibility that the Coner drawing was based on an actual survey is further signalled by the indication of a compass bearing near the right edge of the right page. The relationship between the Coner and Sangallo drawings, in addition, offers yet other clues about the shared ancestry of these various early depictions. Like the Coner drawing, the Sangallo version depicts half of the whole complex and it ostensibly covers its left-hand or north-western portion, but it positions the water cistern on what is the wrong side, which means that it is, in fact, a mirrored image of the south-eastern half of the baths, making it that much closer to the Coner plan. What all this implies, therefore, is that depicting the south-eastern half of the complex was the usual practice at this early time and that all three of these early plans were based on the same established formula.
Certain features of the Coner plan are not found in either of the two other earlier drawings. For example, it has columnar screens inserted into the large double-apsed room in the side wing at the complex’s rear, and – as regards the enclosure – it has the rotunda in the corner correctly linked to a large rectangular columned hall by way of a corridor aligned axially with both spaces, and it gives framing columns to the niches of the exedrae. These same features all appear subsequently in a large-scale plan produced by Giuliano da Sangallo’s son Francesco in 1518, which itself corresponds with an impressive large-scale elevational drawing of the frigidarium (Donetti 2017, pp. 116–17 and 122–23), as well as in later plans such as Palladio’s. Like the Coner drawing, Francesco’s plan again shows the tepidarium accompanied by both spiral staircases and staircases with straight flights, suggesting that it was similarly following the Bramante survey. Unlike the Coner and Bramante drawings, however, his plan does not show the central bay of the frigidarium as being wider than the others, which underscores that, for the Coner plan, the principal aim was to depict the complex as accurately as possible.
The Coner drawing also displays a few interpretative features that are unparalleled in the other early surviving plans. For instance, some considerable attention went into giving the columns a uniform spacing, which resulted in allocating four columns rather than two to the convex colonnade projecting from the front of the caldarium (as seen in later plans such as Palladio’s), and in having the niches of the perimeter exedrae separated not by single columns but by pairs. The drawing also offers a variation on the articulation of the courtyard by having ‘L’-shaped piers rather than columns at the corners, a feature also seen early on in a hybrid plan-elevation of this part of the building in the Uffizi, as well as in a plan by Giuliano da Sangallo of the Baths of Caracalla in his Codex Barberini (fols 66v–67r), and found as well in certain recent modern schemes such as the Cancelleria in Rome (1489), or Giuliano’s forecourt to the church of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi in Florence (1491).
A plan of the baths was appended, together with another of the Baths of Caracalla (see Cat. Fol. 13r and flap/Ashby 22), to the manuscript of Bernardo Rucellai’s De urbe Roma in Florence’s Biblioteca Ricciardiana (Bulgarelli 2005, p. 155), but this is much less accurate and precise.
The drawing runs across a double page that would originally have been at the centre of one of the original codex’s gatherings.
RELATED IMAGES: [Bramante] Florence, GDSU, 104 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 11; Frommel 1989a)
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Antonio da Sangallo the Elder (attr.)] Florence, GDSU, 1546 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 35; Donetti 2017, p. 121); [Anon.] (combined plan and elevation) Florence, GDSU, 1863 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 5); [Francesco da Sangallo] Florence, GDSU, 284 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 126; Donetti 2017, p. 123; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, p. 60); [Francesco da Sangallo (attr.; elevation)] Florence, GDSU, 131 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, pp. 22–23; Donetti 2017, p. 122; [Anon.] Florence, Biblioteca Ricciardiana, Ms. 754, fols 277v–278r; [Andrea Palladio] London, RIBA, Palladio V, 1 (Zorzi 1959, p. 70)
The plan is among the earliest drawings of the complex to survive. It is preceded only by a heavily worked, free-hand drawing of just over half the main block attributed to Bramante (Frommel 1989a), and probably by another ascribed to Antonio da Sangallo the Elder likewise representing just over half the entire complex. The Coner plan is connected – either directly or indirectly – to both, but it is in several respects closer to the Bramante drawing in having several distinctive features seen there but not in Antonio the Elder’s version. These are mainly associated with the caldarium (the rectangular hall at bottom-centre of the right-hand leaf; C in diagram), the tepidarium (the small circular space to its left with four projecting arms), and the frigidarium (the large rectangular space left of the tepidarium mostly shown on the left-hand leaf). The Coner drawing follows Bramante’s drawing in showing the caldarium correctly with a convex entrance projecting forward by some considerable distance, the tepidarium with both a pair of spiral staircases to the front and a further pair with straight flights to the rear, and the frigidarium with a central bay that is wider than the other two – a feature recorded only occasionally in modern plans (see Laurenti–Serlorenzi 2002, p. 59 fig. 71). All these features are interpreted differently in the Sangallo drawing, as is showing the rectangular spaces beyond the frigidarium’s side-aisles as having openings, like in the Bramante drawing, on all four of their sides. While the Coner plan is closer to the Bramante drawing in these particular respects, it still departs from it by recording the structures lining the complex’s periphery, as well as the cistern outside it, which are all featured in the Sangallo plan. It is conceivable, therefore, that the Sangallo plan came first, that the Bramante survey was a modified version of it, and that the Coner drawing was derived from a more finished and more complete version of the Bramante survey that is now lost. The possibility that the Coner drawing was based on an actual survey is further signalled by the indication of a compass bearing near the right edge of the right page. The relationship between the Coner and Sangallo drawings, in addition, offers yet other clues about the shared ancestry of these various early depictions. Like the Coner drawing, the Sangallo version depicts half of the whole complex and it ostensibly covers its left-hand or north-western portion, but it positions the water cistern on what is the wrong side, which means that it is, in fact, a mirrored image of the south-eastern half of the baths, making it that much closer to the Coner plan. What all this implies, therefore, is that depicting the south-eastern half of the complex was the usual practice at this early time and that all three of these early plans were based on the same established formula.
Certain features of the Coner plan are not found in either of the two other earlier drawings. For example, it has columnar screens inserted into the large double-apsed room in the side wing at the complex’s rear, and – as regards the enclosure – it has the rotunda in the corner correctly linked to a large rectangular columned hall by way of a corridor aligned axially with both spaces, and it gives framing columns to the niches of the exedrae. These same features all appear subsequently in a large-scale plan produced by Giuliano da Sangallo’s son Francesco in 1518, which itself corresponds with an impressive large-scale elevational drawing of the frigidarium (Donetti 2017, pp. 116–17 and 122–23), as well as in later plans such as Palladio’s. Like the Coner drawing, Francesco’s plan again shows the tepidarium accompanied by both spiral staircases and staircases with straight flights, suggesting that it was similarly following the Bramante survey. Unlike the Coner and Bramante drawings, however, his plan does not show the central bay of the frigidarium as being wider than the others, which underscores that, for the Coner plan, the principal aim was to depict the complex as accurately as possible.
The Coner drawing also displays a few interpretative features that are unparalleled in the other early surviving plans. For instance, some considerable attention went into giving the columns a uniform spacing, which resulted in allocating four columns rather than two to the convex colonnade projecting from the front of the caldarium (as seen in later plans such as Palladio’s), and in having the niches of the perimeter exedrae separated not by single columns but by pairs. The drawing also offers a variation on the articulation of the courtyard by having ‘L’-shaped piers rather than columns at the corners, a feature also seen early on in a hybrid plan-elevation of this part of the building in the Uffizi, as well as in a plan by Giuliano da Sangallo of the Baths of Caracalla in his Codex Barberini (fols 66v–67r), and found as well in certain recent modern schemes such as the Cancelleria in Rome (1489), or Giuliano’s forecourt to the church of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi in Florence (1491).
A plan of the baths was appended, together with another of the Baths of Caracalla (see Cat. Fol. 13r and flap/Ashby 22), to the manuscript of Bernardo Rucellai’s De urbe Roma in Florence’s Biblioteca Ricciardiana (Bulgarelli 2005, p. 155), but this is much less accurate and precise.
The drawing runs across a double page that would originally have been at the centre of one of the original codex’s gatherings.
RELATED IMAGES: [Bramante] Florence, GDSU, 104 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 11; Frommel 1989a)
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Antonio da Sangallo the Elder (attr.)] Florence, GDSU, 1546 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 35; Donetti 2017, p. 121); [Anon.] (combined plan and elevation) Florence, GDSU, 1863 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 5); [Francesco da Sangallo] Florence, GDSU, 284 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 126; Donetti 2017, p. 123; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, p. 60); [Francesco da Sangallo (attr.; elevation)] Florence, GDSU, 131 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, pp. 22–23; Donetti 2017, p. 122; [Anon.] Florence, Biblioteca Ricciardiana, Ms. 754, fols 277v–278r; [Andrea Palladio] London, RIBA, Palladio V, 1 (Zorzi 1959, p. 70)
Literature
Ashby 1904, p. 14
Ashby 1913, p. 190
Günther 1988, p. 338
Census, ID 43961
Ashby 1913, p. 190
Günther 1988, p. 338
Census, ID 43961
Level
Drawing
Digitisation of the Codex Coner has been made possible through the generosity of the Census of Antique Works of Art and Architecture Known in the Renaissance, Berlin.
If you have any further information about this object, please contact us: drawings@soane.org.uk